[Slackbuilds-users] [FYI]SlackBuild for python modules should be architecture dependent

[Grissiom]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:36, Eric Hameleers <alien at slackbuilds.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Grissiom
>
> If you write a SlackBuild that installs purepython files which are
> architecture independent you will indeed still have a "lib vs lib64"
> difference in the final package depending on the architecture you
> create the package on.
> But since we are SlackBuilds.org and not LinuxPackages.net we do not
> have to worry about where the final package gets built and installed -
> the person who compiles it will know.
>

Hmm, Ok, so I know the role of SlackBuilds.org -- distribute the build
script but not the packages and there is no guarantee that the packages
build from the scripts are re-distributable?


>
> So, the purepython package can be "noarch" as long as you determine
> the install-lib using Python itself:
>
> PYTHONLIB=$( python -c "from distutils.sysconfig import
> get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()" )
>
> This will yield "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages" on Slackware 12.2
> and "/usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages" on slackware64-current. You
> see that the python version number no longer needs to be hardcoded.
>
> Use that variable as follows:
>
> python setup.py install \
>  --prefix=/usr \
>   --install-lib=$PYTHONLIB \
>  --root=$PKG
>

The setup.py will take care of this automaticially. Maybe there is no need
to bother --install-lib if you do not want to re-distribute the package.

You will not have to add the "if ARCH ... fi" block and the
> LIBDIRSUFFIX is not used at all. A single SlackBuild will work on all
> Slackware releases.


Yes, SlackBuilds will always work. So the problem now is the package build
from a SlackBuild is re-distributable or not or, do we want it to be
re-distributable?

-- 
Cheers,
Grissiom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/attachments/20090529/065a2a41/attachment-0001.htm>